Hydrogen-rich water combined with traditional Chinese medicine compound in the treatment of kidney stones: a randomized controlled prospective clinical trial
Yin Y, Wang J, Lian F, Tang Y, Shen Y, Guo Y, Xu Q, Hu J, Yang G, Lu H, Liu W. · Medical Gas Research. 2027 Jan–Feb;17(1):63–69. First published online 12 September 2026; 2027 is the issue year, not a future unpublished study.
Study at a glance
This four-group trial tested hydrogen water, a Chinese herbal formula, their combination and regular water. Among 100 analyzed participants, the main clinical outcome occurred in 32% with hydrogen water versus 28% with regular water, and 80% with the combination versus 76% with herbs alone. Neither hydrogen comparison was statistically significant. Some laboratory markers changed, but the trial did not establish that hydrogen improved stone clearance. Six of 106 enrolled participants withdrew; the report also contains enrollment and water-intake inconsistencies.
Human
Adults aged 18–65 with kidney stones no larger than 7 mm, preserved renal function and specified traditional-Chinese-medicine syndrome criteria.
Intended 2 L/day for 12 weeks. · Reported dissolved H₂ 1–1.5 ppm. Intended water intake 2 L/day; compliance videos of four 280 mL cups/day do not establish achieved 2 L/day intake.
12 weeks.
Primary clinical composite: hydrogen water 8/25 (32%) versus plain water 7/25 (28%); herbs + hydrogen water 20/25 (80%) versus herbs 19/25 (76%). Neither hydrogen-specific comparison was significant (both P ≥ 0.05). The four-group global P < 0.001 does not establish a hydrogen effect. Complete recovery counts were 5/25, 5/25, 8/25 and 11/25 for plain water, hydrogen water, herbs and combination respectively. Some exploratory laboratory comparisons differed; serum creatinine and IL-6 did not show significant treatment-related changes.
Small open-label arms at one centre, 12-week follow-up, complete-case analysis after six withdrawals and inconsistent enrollment/randomization descriptions. Intended 2 L/day intake is not established by videos of four 280 mL cups/day. A composite endpoint and numerous exploratory laboratory comparisons limit interpretation. Neither hydrogen-specific primary comparison was significant; long-term stone recurrence was not assessed.
What kind of evidence is this?
Human
Single-centre prospective randomized four-arm study; computer sequence; outcome/follow-up and laboratory assessors blinded, participants and treating clinicians unblinded.
First published online 12 September 2026; journal issue January–February 2027, volume 17(1), pages 63–69.
Kidney and urinary health
H₂-rich water
Information not yet classified
Some editorial classification fields are still pending. The source-reported outcomes and result are shown below; Hydrogenology does not infer a positive or negative signal from prose automatically.
Methods
Adults aged 18–65 with kidney stones no larger than 7 mm, preserved renal function and specified traditional-Chinese-medicine syndrome criteria.
Results/flow: 106 enrolled (26 plain water, 27 herbs, 27 herbs + hydrogen water, 26 hydrogen water); 6 withdrew; 100 analyzed, 25 per arm. Methods instead describes 100 allocation numbers. The enrollment/randomization discrepancy remains unresolved.
12 weeks.
Intended 2 L/day for 12 weeks.
Molecular hydrogen dissolved in drinking water.
Reported dissolved H₂ 1–1.5 ppm. Intended water intake 2 L/day; compliance videos of four 280 mL cups/day do not establish achieved 2 L/day intake.
The hydrogen-specific comparisons are HRW versus regular water and YSSLF + HRW versus YSSLF. Effects of the herbal combination cannot be attributed to H₂ alone.
Outcomes and reported result
Overall effective rate: a composite of symptom improvement and stone passage, shrinkage at least 30%, downward movement or disappearance of hydronephrosis according to study criteria.
Primary clinical composite: hydrogen water 8/25 (32%) versus plain water 7/25 (28%); herbs + hydrogen water 20/25 (80%) versus herbs 19/25 (76%). Neither hydrogen-specific comparison was significant (both P ≥ 0.05). The four-group global P < 0.001 does not establish a hydrogen effect. Complete recovery counts were 5/25, 5/25, 8/25 and 11/25 for plain water, hydrogen water, herbs and combination respectively. Some exploratory laboratory comparisons differed; serum creatinine and IL-6 did not show significant treatment-related changes.
The available main full text was reviewed for methods, results, limitations and declarations. Remaining source-specific uncertainties are stated in this record.
No overall differences in reported routine blood counts and liver tests. Six withdrawals included diarrhea and two conversions to surgery across the HRW-containing groups. The reported withdrawals and small sample do not support a claim that no adverse events occurred.
A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit.
Limitations and applicability
Small open-label arms at one centre, 12-week follow-up, complete-case analysis after six withdrawals and inconsistent enrollment/randomization descriptions. Intended 2 L/day intake is not established by videos of four 280 mL cups/day. A composite endpoint and numerous exploratory laboratory comparisons limit interpretation. Neither hydrogen-specific primary comparison was significant; long-term stone recurrence was not assessed.
Adults aged 18–65 with kidney stones no larger than 7 mm, preserved renal function and specified traditional-Chinese-medicine syndrome criteria. Findings apply only to the studied design and exposure; no treatment or device recommendation.
National Natural Science Foundation of China: 82304921; Shanghai Science and Technology Commission: 23Y11920500; Pudong Health and Family Planning: PW2023B-13; Traditional Chinese Medicine reform / advanced talent: PDZY-2024-0711; Pudong health talent: 2025PDWSYCQN-04.
Authors declare no conflicts. Shanghai Nanobubble Nanotechnology provided the NB-B81 devices, acknowledged in the article.
No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Read how records and evidence assessments are prepared.
Sources and record status
PMID: 42734448 · DOI: 10.4103/mgr.medgasres-d-26-00067
Complete article in PubMed Central, including supplementary tables.
AI-assisted editorial review of the available main full text, 29 October 2026. The source version and access limitations are stated in this record. No independent clinical or statistical assessment has been performed.
Methods: eligibility, randomization, YSSLF, HRW preparation, outcomes and statistics Results: participant flow; Table 3 primary clinical outcome; Tables 4–6 Additional Tables 1–4 including blood/liver safety results Discussion, registration, funding, acknowledgments and conflicts
AI-assisted editorial review of the available main full text, 29 October 2026. Complete article in PubMed Central, including supplementary tables.
The article reports registration ITMCTR2025001446 on 20 July 2025 and ethics approval 2025-7th-HIRB-035 on 28 February 2025. The exact recruitment day and independent registry timing have not been confirmed.
29 October 2026
Help people check the facts before they buy.
Hydrogenology keeps 692 source-checked records accessible without advertising or product promotion.
Help us correct the recordReport a discrepancy
Send the exact difference between this page and the linked source. The study reference is attached automatically.